January 23, 2006

i used to be a bonds fan but i'm sorry he knew he was taking steroids,and he needs to stay rested to try for the record a player holds who was never questioned about steroids.

posted by polish at 11:04 PM on January 23, 2006

they should take him off the list. It`s not fair to give him a chance to break the record

posted by adeberardinis at 12:05 AM on January 24, 2006

Don't be silly guys- if Barry doesn't want to play in the WBC, why should he? And why should a 41 year old risk injury before what could be statistically the most important season of his career- if healthy he'll definitely pass Ruth, and possibly pass Aaron. The chance to do that- literally a once in any lifetime event. Heck, Clemens was right to take an easier, not-always-travel-with-the-team strategy, the Astros were happy to oblige, and it made for yet more great seasons from one of the greatest pitchers ever. When you attain the ranks of the Clemens or the Bonds, you get special dispensation for a reason: you are better than anyone else. A healthy Barry is all about team: there's no indication to the contrary that I've ever heard. Barry's job is to be Barry- turning him into a banjo-hitting singles machine would be a fucking waste. Look at how he pulled and lifted that Giants team into the playoffs and World Series a few years ago, and look how badly they play when he's not around. His terrifying presence in that lineup chances the whole complexion of two or three innings at a time. Why should he risk not only his personal statistical accomplishments, but also the team's success this year, for a stupid fucking joke of a tournament that no one really gives two shits about except Bud "league mismanagement" Selig? Anyway... Aaron's not exactly innocent- while it wasn't steroids in the 60's, it was amphetamines; players of his era, and even Aaron and Robinson and others admit, popped greenies to give them that "boost". I fail to see why one is pure and the other is evil incarnat, other than some misguided and foolish nostalgia. I've been a long time defender of Bonds, and I'd love to see him get that record. I think people who want to asterisk are being as ridiculous as any "61*" nonsense. They might as well start pushing for a re-segregation of the game, and an end to international scouting and player development. If a whites-only game was good enough for Ruth, why let black players in? If American-only players were good enough for Aaron's time, why allow people from the Dominican Republic to play? Why should good ol' American players have to compete with some Japanese pipsqueak like Ichiro for a batting title? Granted, a fair number of all-stars wouldn't be playing in the game today if it weren't for these developments, but don't let that stop you from ham-fisted notions of how Barry will never "measure up" to false gods of times past. It appears some of you think the game should never change, and players should never adapt to changing times and changing technologies, so that we can always call the records pure, and the game something unchanged from times gone past.

---

Besides, I'm quite convinced that far more than any steroid use, Barry's success has come from insane natural talent, dedication and mental improvement over the years- Bonds has been as devoted to his craft as Ted Williams and Tony Gwynn were. Take the son of a near-hall-of-fame player, raised in the presence of people like Willie Mays, groomed from infancy to be a baseball titan, with the benefit of modern strength training and video learning... why even try to make excuses like steroids? Oh... and let's not forget the maple bats. A move predicted in part by Robert Adair's "The Physics of Baseball" years prior, when analyzing the strengths and weakness of old hickory bats, Adair noted that experimenting with some alternate woods could be a huge boon to players. Lighter bats such as ash bats swing quicker, but tend to break easily, and be less forgiving of the mis-hit ball. Heavier bats like the old hickory bats of Ruth's time swung slower, but would allow mis-hit balls to still get significant power (much like aluminum bats). As pitchers got faster and stronger with each passing decade, the move to ash became a necessity to still get around on these 95mph heaters and 87mph sliders and curves... but at the sacrifice of the friendlier energy transfer of the denser bats. Now maple bats, their use pioneered in part by Bonds himself, allow players to get close to the speed of ash bats, but still have near the energy transfer of the hickory bat/aluminum bat. Since the mis-hit ball- the one hit off of the perfect "sweet spot"- is the norm, a maple bat allows those hits to still get more power than they would from an ash bat. Use a maple bat, and those slightly mis-hit, warning track balls are now homeruns. Barry can put all his muscle- natural or otherwise- into his swings because he's a brilliant hitter who works the count to his faovr, and because his bat allows him to be off by a centimeter without losing as much distance on the fly ball as if he took the same swing with an ash bat. I'm stating physics facts here, folks. You can believe steroids- and he's probably taken some performance enhancing elements that may or may not be steroids or even technically illegal- but I think it gives him at most a couple of homeruns he wouldn't have had anyway. So yeah- he'll have to hit 760 instead of 755 to account for the BALCO juice. Fine by me....

posted by hincandenza at 03:49 AM on January 24, 2006

Hal, thank you.

posted by qbert72 at 07:01 AM on January 24, 2006

Wonderful debate gentlemen. Kudos to Hal and BullpenPro. We need to keep one thing in mind, there's no doubt that athletes are under much more scrutiny today as compared to years past. I do not know if we'll ever know the truth about cheating in past years. The problem today is that cheating has become pervasive in our society, not just in sports. Proof of that can be found by looking at our federal government or state gov't (Ohio). Whatever happened to players like Bench or Czonka..........(I think).

posted by Cambo at 07:49 AM on January 24, 2006

OK...First off, I am absolutely thrilled that the head of the roid freaks will not be playing in the WBC. Let a more deserving player have his spot. Second, to the lively debate about Bonds being a "special player." Bonds is only special because he cheated. If you look at his stats before going to the Bay area, they were not astonishing by any means. Then all the sudden you see a great increase in BA, HR, SLG, etc. Now, I understand that improvement happens. But let us not forget that if you are juicing you are going to be much stronger. When you are stronger, you are more likely to push sloppy hits through the gaps and hit more line drives that drop for hits. Bonds may have a "good" eye, but the 'roids will definitely help that. Third, if we want to celebrate players, lets look at the guys who have done great things WITHOUT the need of juice. If you think that Bonds is a special player, what about Pujols. He has put up consistent, "Bonds like" numbers since day one. Or what about Ortiz, Manny, Ichiro, and on and on and on. Bonds is a cheater, plain and simple. He should be tarred and feathered and run out of the sport. And Hal, as far as the comment about barry being all about the TEAM, did you read the latest article where he said that he would not bat second because he did not feel that was what was best for him at this point in his career. That does not sound like team spirit to me.

posted by mcstan13 at 08:42 AM on January 24, 2006

Barry's use of steroids is not a fact. There are just a number of different allegations out there, some with merit and some without any. This idea that he somehow admitted doing so in his grand jury testimony just ain't so. He only admitted to using something clear and some sort of cream. You can make the leap that they must have been the BALCO steroids, but that doesn't make it a fact. Furthermore, I disagree with the idea that we baseball fans know that Bonds cheated. Even if we believe that he used steroids, how is that cheating without a rule prohibiting its use? Cheating means to dishonestly violate rules. You cannot cheat without a rule in place in the sport. And, I agree with Hal that steroids use is not the explanation for why Bonds is such a fierce hitter. 5% of major leaguers tested positive for steroids during the first year of anonymous testing. Yet, no one even comes close to him. "Cheating" ain't what makes him special.

posted by bperk at 08:46 AM on January 24, 2006

I for one don't want to see him break Aaron's record. Bonds does not deserve to have the honor. I hope he doesn't break it and if he does...asterisk tiiiime!

posted by the Judge at 09:15 AM on January 24, 2006

I HOPE BONDS GOES BLIND JUST BEFORE THE START OF THE SEASON, THEN MAYBE HE COULD SING AND PLAY THE FUCKING PIANO IN THE SAN FRANCISCO NIGHTCLUB CIRCUT.

posted by USAGTO at 09:27 AM on January 24, 2006

I HOPE BONDS GOES BLIND JUST BEFORE THE START OF THE SEASON, THEN MAYBE HE COULD SING AND PLAY THE FUCKING PIANO IN THE SAN FRANCISCO NIGHTCLUB CIRCUT. Yep, I remember when I had MY first beer. You may want to turn your radio down, there, caller.

posted by BullpenPro at 09:40 AM on January 24, 2006

I think Bonds decision to opt out of the world cup is the probably the right decision for him. He is 41 years old and does not have much left in his tank. He needs to save his AB's for the season. I have a couple of disagreements with some of the earlier posts. 1. Even though there is not much excitement in the US about the world cup, the rest of world, particularly the Latin American countries are excited about it and see it as an opportunity to showcase their abilities on a worldwide stage. Having spent the last 3 months in the Dominican Republic, I can tell you that there is genuine excitement and anticipation for the upcoming tournament. 2. Steroids can't help improve your "batting eye". Bonds and other star players hit with a different strike zone than your average major leaguer. The strike zone is smaller for them and a smart hitter, like Bonds, can exploit that and look for pitches in that smaller zone and take the rest. It is a lot easier to hit the ball hard when your strikezone is about the size of a shoebox. 3. "Greenies" do not help you hit a baseball farther or throw harder. They were a way to help get you through the rigors of playing 162 games in 180 days. Players will now start guzzling red bulls, coffee, and other stimulants to help them get through the grind of a long season. Others will just go to GNC or vitamin world and purchase Xenadrine, Ripped Fuel, or dozens of other over the counter stimulants that can produce similar results. And all of those are legal to consume.

posted by erkno11 at 09:46 AM on January 24, 2006

3. "Greenies" do not help you hit a baseball farther or throw harder. They were a way to help get you through the rigors of playing 162 games in 180 days. Players will now start guzzling red bulls, coffee, and other stimulants to help them get through the grind of a long season. Excellent point. Good one, erkno.

posted by BullpenPro at 10:21 AM on January 24, 2006

There is a difference between physical peak and FREAKISH developement. If he put up Pujols numbers and then went to Bonds numbers. I could call that development, BUT come on. Are you serious. However, thank you for quoting all that above. I agree that he was a GOOD player in Pit. But I am not talking about his stats in reference to the rest of the league, I am talking about the sudden jump in his own numbers.

posted by mcstan13 at 11:04 AM on January 24, 2006

Since they are using the Olympic kind of drug testing for the WBC, maybe Barry is worried that he isn't exactly "clean" yet. Just a thought.

posted by dbt302 at 11:28 AM on January 24, 2006

But, has anyone's numbers ever gotten so much better at his age? I think not. Define "numbers", and I can run a query in the Lahman database to give you the results. HR? SLG? OPS? And what "age" are we talking? 1 year span? 3 year span? And what are we comparing it to? Players in their own era? Are we taking into account difference in eras (comparing baseball in the 2000s with baseball in the early 1960s and to baseball in the 1920s will require some "rebalancing").

posted by grum@work at 11:59 AM on January 24, 2006

Bonds is undoubtedly a cheater - a 'roider. That is really no longer the issue. What is at issue is his place in the pantheon of great MLB players. I would echo the sentiments of some on this board that his numbers pre-Giants are impressive to the point of HoF worthyness. Frankly, he is a special case and is now one of the top five (or even top three) hitters of all-time. The degree to which you attribute this to steriods is really a choice, since the evidence is debatable both ways. However, the undeniable truth is that Bonds is the most feared hitter in the game, and if all that took was a couple of pills and some practice, we'd see more Bonds-like players out there. But we don't. The laser-like focus (the guy sees maybe ten pitches a week that are hittable - and he hammers them all), eye-hand coordination and impossible bat speed are not simply products of pharmaceuticals, but of a once-in-a-lifetime talent. He absolutely should skip the WBC as a 41-year old with a shot at one of the biggest records in sports.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:02 PM on January 24, 2006

bdaddy... just wanted to let you that the secrecy of the grand jury only applies to the prosecutor, court reporter and the jurors, NOT the witness. Bonds can leak anything he wants. And since no one was prosecuted for contempt, you have to wonder where the subject of the leak came from???? Bonds could have told someone what he testified to and they leaked it... who really knows the truth. grum@work...query it all. But I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone with the kind of mammoth improvement as Bonds. All of you who are all up on Bonds can continue to delude yourselves into thinking that he didn't juice, but when it comes right to do it they are simply that ... delusions. If you like Bonds, then like him. If you don't care that he juiced, then say so. But to keep claiming that you don't think he used steroids is ludacris. Especially when the evidence of it is so overwhelming.

posted by mcstan13 at 12:07 PM on January 24, 2006

I wish the "JERK" would play that way he would undergo Olympic drug testing. Does anyone think he could pass? I don't.

posted by packerfan4ever at 12:53 PM on January 24, 2006

Numbers: BA, OBPS, SLG PCT, AB per HR. Age: Comparism of average of above numbers from age 18 to 35, then above age 35. Era: ANY Grind em up and spit 'em out. The results may be, well, ludicrous.

posted by mjkredliner at 01:29 PM on January 24, 2006

As a Giants fan and a fan of Barry Bonds I think this is a very good idea. The WBC isn't paying his salary, the Giants are, he doesn't need to get and show what he can do for a meaningless game. He needs to stay as healthy as possible for his team this year. Why wouldn't Alou bat Bonds third? He'd get nearly the same number of at bats and would have a much better chance of having someone on that way.

posted by fenriq at 01:37 PM on January 24, 2006

Bonds' name was on a provisional roster of 52 players that Team USA was required to submit Jan. 17. That day also marked the start of the tournament's drug-testing program. Players are subject to Olympic-style testing, with a two-year suspension from international competition for a first positive test. However, baseball lawyers said names of players who test positive in out-of-competition testing will not be announced. Anyone really think this was just a coincidence?

posted by irunfromclones at 01:47 PM on January 24, 2006

Illegally leaked testimony is still admissible in the court of public opinion so is fictional, made up news stories (the Dan Rather piece springs to mind). The question should be, how willing are you to be influenced by something of which you have 2% of the information on and is blantantly painted a certain way by people(the San Francisco Chronicle) who have an obvious bias of the person in question (Bonds)

posted by bdaddy at 01:53 PM on January 24, 2006

Bonds' name was on a provisional roster of 52 players that Team USA was required to submit Jan. 17. That day also marked the start of the tournament's drug-testing program. Players are subject to Olympic-style testing, with a two-year suspension from international competition for a first positive test. However, baseball lawyers said names of players who test positive in out-of-competition testing will not be announced. Anyone really think this was just a coincidence? That's pretty funny, considering it's pretty much the same response people had when Barry sat out most of the 2005 season after his knee surgeries. "He's doing it to avoid the testing!", was the accusation. Except, of course, he was tested during that time. And he passed. But now, if he gives a perfectly legitimate reason to not play in the WBC, it's another round of "Barry is avoiding testing!" Which leads to the question: "What if Barry passed that test?" Would we see all the naysayers suddenly proclaiming they were wrong and that Barry isn't juicing any more? Probably not. Instead, we'd get another round of the classic "Coverup!" and "He's bought a better masking agent!" and "MLB is paying to hide the results!"

posted by grum@work at 03:15 PM on January 24, 2006

 Sammy Sosa 49% Barry Bonds 40% Rogers Hornsby 39% Ivan Rodriguez 36% Gary Sheffield 33% Jeff Bagwell 33% Duke Snider 31% Willie Stargell 26% Reggie Smith 25% Chili Davis 24% Mark McGwire 24% Jim Thome 23% Al Kaline 22% Ron Gant 21% Vic Wertz 21% Jack Clark 20% Vern Stephens 20% Ken Griffey 20% Matt Williams 19% Gil Hodges 18% Lou Gehrig 17% Andre Dawson 17% Albert Belle 16% Mike Schmidt 15% George Scott 15% 

The most truthful statement on this thread: The very mention of Barry stirs up more shit than a tornado crossin a pig farm............. Personally, I don't much care if he took steroids, which may or may not help your performance, when there was no rule against such steroids, and of which we have no concrete proof of him knowingly taking in the first place. I don't much care for Barry but I'm becoming endeared to him because people consistently crap on the guy.

posted by tron7 at 03:50 PM on January 24, 2006

 Bobby Murcer 38% Darrell Evans 37% Glenallen Hill 36% Barry Bonds 35% Eddie Robinson 31% Donn Clendenon 31% Rob Deer 29% Andres Galarraga 28% Gary Matthews 28% Will Clark 28% Frank Thomas 27% Steve Finley 26% Ken Caminiti 26% Mark McGwire 25% Marquis Grissom 25% Harold Baines 21% Carlton Fisk 21% Joe Gordon 18% Bob Watson 15% Chili Davis 15% Ellis Burks 13% Rick Monday 13% Vern Stephens 13% Ted Williams 13% Hank Aaron 13% 

grum@work, I appreciate the data, but , if you could include said data for the ages of 34 and above, i think Bonds will stand out like a sore thumb. (Not unlike Sammy Sosa above.That does not raise a red flag?) Also, i am not sure how to interpret your findings. For instance, does that mean that Sammy required 49% fewer at bats per hr as compared to the previous time period? Again, i appreciate your efforts, and your arguments as well.

posted by mjkredliner at 04:03 PM on January 24, 2006

The second most truthful statement on this thread: ...if all that took was a couple of pills and some practice, we'd see more Bonds-like players out there. But we don't. The laser-like focus (the guy sees maybe ten pitches a week that are hittable - and he hammers them all), eye-hand coordination and impossible bat speed are not simply products of pharmaceuticals, but of a once-in-a-lifetime talent. Damn straight.

posted by JohnSFO at 04:19 PM on January 24, 2006

But let us not forget that if you are juicing you are going to be much stronger. When you are stronger, you are more likely to push sloppy hits through the gaps and hit more line drives that drop for hits. Any athlete that uses steroids will tell you, that you only get the benefits of juice while you're actually on it. They will also tell you that joe shmoe can't take juice and become a world class athlete. Juice merely enhances your own natural ability. You also have to workout religiously. Taking juice and sitting around doesn't help anything. If any of you are implying that Bonds records are merely possible because of juice, you are mistaken. While the juice does aid in his performance, it's not responsible for his pure ability. If you want to put an asterisk next to his achievements, then I think its only fair that we examine all record holders, in all sports. Was Michael Jordan ever tested? And being an old school philly fan, the first person I want to question is Wayne Gretzky. The way he skated circles around opposing teams with superhuman speed and agility, he certainly would be a candidate for investigation. Its now well known how NHL players prepare for games using stimulants and so forth. Is that cheating? If it was ever found out that Gretzky used enhancing substances, does he then become a cheater? Or would he still have been the greatest ever? No one can make that determination. Likewise, no one can make that determination about Bonds. The fact is, none of us know how good he would have been if he never juiced at all. And no one knows if the people whos' records he has broken or will break, were on the "juice" of their day either. Its unamerican if we call 1 record setter a cheat, without even investigating the others with which he competes. If investigating the others is not possible, do we assume they didn't cheat? Do we assume that they set some superhuman record that has stood for so many years because they were just that good? Do we assume that, because someone had to cheat to break the record, that it proves that the person who set it must have cheated as well? Or can one athlete be that much better than the rest? Bonds was already good. If he was average, then took juice and became great, you have an argument. But because he was already great, no one will ever know for sure if it was the juice or not. So, since it can't be proved without a doubt, you can't put an asterisk next to any of his records. If you do, then you have to put a question mark next to all great record holders, because nobody knows if they cheated or not.

posted by BlogZilla at 04:38 PM on January 24, 2006

grum@work, I appreciate the data, but , if you could include said data for the ages of 34 and above, i think Bonds will stand out like a sore thumb. (Not unlike Sammy Sosa above.That does not raise a red flag?) Also, i am not sure how to interpret your findings. For instance, does that mean that Sammy required 49% fewer at bats per hr as compared to the previous time period? Again, i appreciate your efforts, and your arguments as well. I provided the 35+ data just before your post (obvious timing issue there), so I hope you can use it. And yes, it means that Sosa required 49% less AB to hit a home run when comparing prime (28-34) to pre-prime (21-27) seasons. And just in case anyone was suggesting that Bonds 73 HR is an obvious sign of steroid use ("It's WAY more than his average!"), I ran one final query. Find the biggest "freak" HR seasons in MLB history. I do this by finding all HR seasons of 30+, where the player played at least 10 seasons and had at least 200 career HR. Compare that season to the average season for that player (excluding the "freak" season). So where does Bonds 73HR season rank? 148th. (118% increase over the rest of his career average) Topping the list? Brady Anderson's 50HR season in 1996 (368% increase over his remaining career average) And, just to tie it to my first stats post, Roger Hornsby has 3 seasons that stand out as bigger HR "flukes" than Bonds' 2001 season. I'm tellin' ya...someone better investigate that Hornsby character... ;) we all know why he isnt going to play........ The Wbc is using the same roids policy as the olympics. Huh harsher tests and the wunderkin has decided not to play. posted by anaheim angels not la at 4:23 PM CST on January 24 Wow. I'm guessing you just joined today and didn't even bother reading the other posts. /checks Yup! I was right. Thanks for your insightful and original comment!

posted by grum@work at 04:51 PM on January 24, 2006

Except, of course, he was tested during that time. And he passed. Except of course, that those were private tests, administered by Balco, not the MLB.

posted by irunfromclones at 05:29 PM on January 24, 2006

does anyone not from the bay area or PIT sincerely believe barry anymore?

posted by ninjavshippo at 06:11 PM on January 24, 2006

It seems that the Commisioner would do a little more exstensive testing than the old piss in a cup.Maybe a blood test or maybe even start to look at there dna. Thats how you catch the cheaters,the clean players won't mind and the dirty players will have every excuse not to be tested in these manor's.

posted by ccrist at 07:05 PM on January 24, 2006

I would like to thank grum for fighting the good fight one more time. The good book says we'll win it. /Stryper

posted by qbert72 at 10:07 PM on January 24, 2006

windy indeed. If anyone does not think 1 hr per 7 ab's over a 5 year period at an age when almost all athletes skills begin to erode is not an a pharmacological aberration, check out Ruth or Aarons or even Mcgwire's best five year period put together over the 5 BEST YEARS OF THEIR CAREERS in this stat. I suggest a new term for baseball excellence: BALCOIAN. Sorry for beating this old dead horse y'all, but it irks me, and apparently others as well. Barry's run at history is a sham.

posted by mjkredliner at 01:54 AM on January 25, 2006

Precisely - ABs is a hollow argument, considering the guy walks 200 times a year and only records 3-400 ABs. Of course his HR/AB is going to be lower than ever one else's.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:40 AM on January 25, 2006

Well, you're 0/2 on sensible stat-related comments. Intentional vs. unintentional walks is not important. You can't discount intentional walks like they're not earned; on the contrary, they are an admission by the manager that he doesn't think his pitcher can handle Bonds. Either way, you do have the amazing ability to determine PRECISELY which were: chiggity-check the IBB column in season stats and deduct that from the BB column.

posted by yerfatma at 09:14 AM on January 25, 2006

Steroids would have no measurable influence on walks OR strikeouts Why? If steroids turned more fly outs into HRs, that would make pitchers more likely to nibble and make managers more likely to intentionally walk or semi-intentionally walk once the pitcher got to 2-0, 3-0. I'm not clear on the value of "HR/AB-K" (I'm assuming you mean "HR/(AB-K)"); how does subtracting strikeouts from at bats solve the objections raised up thread to the use of At Bats?

posted by yerfatma at 10:21 AM on January 25, 2006

BullpenPro - I don't have access to my database right now, but maybe you could do a check and see how Darrell Evans numbers (HR/(AB-K)) look in comparison. As you can see in one of my previous posts, he had a more dramatic uptick in HR-hitting ability after the age of 34 than even Bonds.

posted by grum@work at 11:31 AM on January 25, 2006

Interestingly, SBC park opened in 2000... perhaps the stat guys here could look up homerun comparisons between SBC and Candlestick, and especially focusing on left-handed hitters. SBC's RF line is only 309 feet, which despite sloping out rapidly is pretty much for Bonds a mirror image of what Fenway is to right-handed hitters- only with a wall about 12 feet shorter. Or you might compare Bond's rate over time for away homeruns only, if you have those splits. That'll negate the homefield benefits he might get from any of his home parks. The likelihood is we'll not find one source of his amazing abilities- he's been great his whole career, and superhuman over the last few years. It's a perfect storm of ungodly talent, increasing intelligence in this player about the game as he ages, advancing equipment technologies like maple bats, a home park designed for his left-handed power hitting, a general imbalance in the hitter/pitcher dynamic in the game, a small strike zone, an elbow protector that allows one to crowd the plate, greater strength possibly caused by steroids, etc, etc, etc. In Barry, talent more than anything is the reason he's so successful, but he's been a perfect storm of hitting prowess unequaled in baseball. And we as fans have the privilege of seeing a player so good, Ruth wouldn't be fit to carry his jock.

posted by hincandenza at 05:02 PM on January 25, 2006

Ruth wouldn't be fit to carry his jock. Always killing your own points with hyperbole.

posted by yerfatma at 06:32 AM on January 26, 2006